February 14, 2016 · 9:26 am
Almost immediately after the passing of US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican senators vowed to block any appointment by President Obama to fill the seat, stating that the “American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice” (source: Huffington Post). To this, my brother who holds a Master’s Degree in History asserted that Republicans “quote the Constitution verbatim when it comes to ‘The right to bear arms’ but they ignore it when it comes to the President’s obligation to appoint Supreme Court justices.” I decided to read the part of the Constitution concerning appointment of Supreme Court Justices, since I had not read it since college.
[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
(Source: Cornell University Law Dept.)
The Constitution is very clear here. Nowhere does it state that the American people should select Supreme Court Justices; it is solely the President’s responsibility, and it is the responsibility of the Senate to provide “advice and consent.” Rather than obstructing the nomination, the Senate should expedite and assist in the process. This is what the Constitution demands.
I find it troubling that the US Constitution is being used in the same manner the Bible is often used—to be cited when it justifies what a group or individual believes in, but ignored when it contradicts those beliefs or opinions. The Constitution is the defining document that dictates how our government should operate and how our laws should be interpreted. If we begin to disregard sections for the sake of partisan politics, then we start down a very dangerous and slippery slope.
Filed under Non-fiction
Tagged as America, analysis, appointment, bible, constitution, Cornell, debate, democracy, Democrat, government, interpretation, law, legislation, Obama, politics, president, reading, Republican, Scalia, senate, social issues, society, Supreme Court, United States
December 7, 2015 · 5:03 pm
I generally try to avoid controversy on my blog, but it’s often not possible. Today, I decided to read the actual text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which is the subject of much debate in the wake of too many mass shootings in this country.
The actual text reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It is important to note that the text is constructed as a single sentence. The implication, then, as I understand it from a grammatical perspective, is that all the clauses that comprise the sentence are inherently connected to each other.
“A well regulated Militia” is for me the key to this amendment and is most often glossed over. The purpose of individuals being guaranteed the right to “keep and bear Arms” is solely for the purpose of maintaining a state militia, not for personal use. Also, the text clearly states that the bearing of arms should be “well regulated.” Unfortunately, I do not see anything that even vaguely resembles “well regulated” restrictions applied to the ownership of firearms. It seems to me that common sense legislation requiring proper licensing, training, and registration should be the very least in meeting the constitutional requirement of being “well regulated.”
I’m sure that many people will disagree with my interpretation, and that’s fine. In a democracy, vigorous debate is not only encouraged but required. But debate also implies compromise. It’s my hope that both sides can come together and agree on some common-sense changes to current policy that is in line with the Second Amendment but also serves to protect the citizens of this country, because isn’t that the ultimate goal of the US Constitution, to protect the citizens?
Filed under Non-fiction
Tagged as America, analysis, bear arms, constitution, debate, firearms, grammar, guns, legislation, mass shooting, militia, politics, reading, rights, second amendment, social issues, society, states
July 4, 2012 · 1:48 pm
It has become customary for me to read the Declaration of Independence every July 4th. I think it’s important to keep fresh the principles on which this country was founded, especially when it seems that these principles are being distorted, neglected, and flat out broken. I recall several years ago, visiting the National Archives in Washington DC on a July 4th weekend, and thinking how our government was founded on a piece of paper, as opposed to the crown jewels that represent British government. It did make me feel proud to be an American.
I’d like to start by mentioning one of the more recognizable passages from the text: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I’ve thought about this passage a lot this past year, as I’ve seen the rights of American’s being stripped away because of their sexual orientation. The pursuit of happiness means that individuals should have the right to be with a person who makes them happy and to share the same rights as all other citizens.
The document continues to list the offenses of the king against the colonies. As I read through the list, there were several that stood out as applicable today.
- He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. — I see this occurring on a daily basis in Congress. Votes are cast along party lines without regard to whether a law benefits the citizens. Even worse is when laws are passed that benefit corporate interests at the expense of individuals and communities.
- He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. — This occurred just the other day here in NC, when the state legislature dragged out a session, causing a House representative to accidentally hit the wrong button on a vote to overturn a fracking ban. She immediately announced her mistake, but the people seeking to overturn the veto refused to allow her to change her vote and viewed it as a victory.
- He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. — I have just one word to say about this: Arizona.
- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. — All I could think about as I read this one was Clarence Thomas. Let’s face it, he is not the picture of unbiased interpretation of the Constitution. And yes, Supreme Court justices tend to be either conservative or liberal, and I believe maintaining a balance is good, I have yet to see Mr Thomas vote in any way that would make me think that he is not a puppet.
- He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. — As I think about the environmental destruction of our resources and coastal regions for the sole purpose of monetary gain and to quench our insatiable thirst for cheap energy, and how people are now suffering as a result of assaults on the environment, I feel quite certain that our founding fathers would be appalled at what we have allowed to happen.
I encourage everyone to let go of the petty team mentality that has caused such a rift amongst Americans, resulting in intolerance and animosity that is based solely upon whether a person is considered progressive or conservative. Get involved, read, make educated decisions, and do not allow yourself to be swayed by propaganda. You can take the first step by carefully reading the Declaration of Independence right now.
Click here to read the text from the Archives’ website.
You must be logged in to post a comment.